# Sergeant Perry Watkins v. United States Army

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 3, 1989 · 875 F.2d 699

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479063

## Case

- **Full name:** Sergeant Perry WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ARMY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 3, 1989
- **Citations:** 875 F.2d 699; 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,967; 49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1763; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6049; 1989 WL 43261
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Canby
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Schroeder, Pregerson, Alarcon, Nelson, Canby, Norris, Beezer, Hall, O'Scannlain, Trott
- **Cited by:** 232 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479063

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that equitable estoppel could be invoked against the government where the Army affirmatively misrepresented to defendant over a 14-year period that he was qualified for reenlistment despite an ongoing policy that homosexuality constituted a nonwaivable disqualification…
- holding that the Army was estopped from denying a soldier’s pending reenlistment and issuing a discharge based on homosexuality, because the Army knew of soldier’s past admissions from official records and nevertheless enlisted him
- finding that the prong of suspectness inquiry is satisfied when the identifying trait is “so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change [it]”
- stating that "any attempt to criminalize the status of an individual's sexual orientation would present grave constitutional problems"
- holding, on grounds of estoppel, that the Army was precluded from questioning a sergeant about his homosexual conduct

## Opinion text

CANBY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur wholeheartedly in Judge Preger-son's majority opinion. My concurrence indicates no retreat, however, from my conviction that the Army’s discrimination against Watkins because of his homosexual orientation denies him equal protection of the laws. I joined Judge Norris’ eloquent opinion so holding in Watkins II, and I agree with everything Judge Norris says today on the equal protection point. Because we are en banc, and the constitutional issue is a recurring one, I think I may appropriately reach it even though equitable estoppel may dispose of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479063. Public record. Not legal advice.